The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Washington, D.C. based 501 (c) 3 which tells Muslims coming into this country to tell Customs Agents that it’s “none of their damn business” where they’ve traveled to or what their travels were about.

Nihad Awad (second from right), Executive Director and Founder of CAIR, stands to President Bush’s left, when Bush said “Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday’s attacks (on Sept. 11, 2001).” Wikipedia.

Apparently it’s none of the U.S.’s business to know where they are from, what Islamist countries they have come from or what they want to accomplish coming into the U.S.A.

The story by Breitbart.com reports that CAIR is calling for Muslim’s to not talk to customs officials while entering the U.S. from Islamist-controlled countries. The story says CAIR directs Muslims to tell U.S. Customs Agents who ask about their travels, that it’s “None of your damn business” and to chant Muslim prayers loudly, instead.

The blog article also explains that the longstanding relationship between the FBI and CAIR had been discontinued once a 2008 court case with an Islamist group that CAIR was associated with, called the Holy Land Foundation, was found to have provided material support to the terrorist group, HAMAS. The Holy Land Foundation was shut down in a raid in 2001.

Breitbart.com reports;

The FBI cut ties with The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) after the Holy Land Foundation trial where “CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator along with its co-founder Omar Achmad as supporters of the terrorist group HAMAS.

We raided the organization’s Texas headquarters, seized its assets, and shut down its operation. At the time, Holy Land was ranked as the country’s largest Muslim charitable organization.

With this in mind, I ask the question, why is CAIR still in operation?

We may find a similar question answered by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, who wrote an article published in and online publication, the Middle East Quarterly entitled, “CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment” (2006):

That the U.S. government, the mainstream media, educational institutions, and others have given CAIR a free pass amounts to a dereliction of duty. Yet, there appear to be no signs of change. How long will it be until the establishment finally recognizes CAIR for what it is and denies it mainstream legitimacy?

Two examples of the White House inviting CAIR representatives are here and here.

CAIR as a nonprofit collects funds from around the world, supports HAMAS, probably is a front charity for terrorism groups especially HAMAS and tells the government that they can’t have any information that may be related to terrorist activities they may have access to but still has 501(c)3 tax status. This means that since they are recognized as a “charitable organization” here in America, (according to a law group that gives information about starting your own nonprofit here), CAIR’s benefits would include:

Exemption from Federal income tax;

Tax-deductible contributions;

Possible exemption from state income, sales, and employment taxes;

Reduced postal rates;

Exemption from Federal unemployment tax; and

Tax-exempt financing.

Again, how long will we have to endure terrorist-connected charity groups operating in the United States? Isn’t this anti-American and very dangerous to society and to our way of life.

Americans not supporting terrorist organizations should be shouting from the roof tops that supporting terrorist groups is unlawful and treasonous, and hold the White House and our Representatives in Congress’ feet to the fire. How this will ever be explained down through history is anyone’s guess.

The words, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, caught my eye. I have never heard of them. As part of my learning about the Muslim faith, I delved into some reading about this “community”, here.

After reading the first two paragraphs, I can see a merging of religions on this page so that all religions are welcome. Some say “Chrislam” is a joining of the two religions, Christianity and Islam but how can two religions be the same?

The One World Order theme also expresses the idea that all roads lead to the same God and this is not true. Not to believer’s in Christ, that is.

One believes that Jesus is the true Christ, the One True God with the Father (in heaven) and the Holy Spirit, God’s Holy Spirit, given to the followers of Christ. All three forms are God Himself. This is God, the one that I believe in.

However, Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet, and not the One True God of the Trinity; The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost or Spirit, whichever you prefer to call His Holy Spirit. Often it is called the Holy Ghost which we know means the Holy Spirit. I prefer to use the Holy Spirit as God when I prefer to His Spirit but Holy Ghost is the same, I believe.

Now, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community site claims to be the only Muslim faith that believes the Messiah, who is Jesus Christ so there must be some confusion here, came as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who is described on their page, in the third paragraph, by their Community as such;

The advent of The Holy Prophet sa is described metaphorically as the appearance of God Almighty. The Holy Prophet sa became the mirror reflecting Divine Attributes. He was Al- Abd. The Holy Quran calls him Abdullah (72:20) — The Servant of Allah. For the latter days God in His Mercy sent us the servant of The Servant — Ghulam Ahmad as. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as (Ahmad as) claimed to be The Promised Messiah and Mahdi. Ahmad as claimed to be the metaphorical second coming of Jesusas of Nazareth and the divine guide, whose advent was foretold by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad sa.

Seeing the Muslim’s of today, it is hard to see the “divine attributes” that they talk about.

It seems the Muslims copy the bible and assert that theirs is the only God who purifies them in the flesh so that they can commit murder against Infadels, have sex with children and perform perversions among the innocent. They have multiple wives, have no morals and are thugs. They seem to think they are purified and so can do these things like smack their women and say they are “unclean” and use children for bombings and find women in heaven waiting to do their bidding in sexual matters.

After all, that’s what God wants, in their religion.

They cover themselves in holiness trying to cover up their sexual perversions and aggression’s toward others.

I mean, a Muslim war criminal from Somalia has been working as a security guard at Dulles International Airport, in Washington, D.C.

He got kicked out of Canada, once his history became known, but he found refuge in a place in America, near our nation’s capital. I wonder if he knows our President that that happened? Just wondering… The city he lives in is Alexandria, Virginia.

Yusuf Abdi Ali, age 63, is being accused of shooting and leaving a man for dead as a military commander during the barbarous civil war in Somalia.

Officials with Master Security, a contractor that provides security guards to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), told ABC News they were not aware of the pending civil litigation against their employee until Tuesday, but have now placed Ali on paid administrative leave while they investigate.

Working to uncover the truth, is radical Islam part of the Obama agenda, and how much of a risk we are at in the United States over the radical Islamist agenda that Mr. Obama won’t mention, I offer a speech that examines staff with Muslim backgrounds that have come into question in past years.

The point being, do high government officials have the right to classified information when their family members have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and related organizations?

I’ve been writing about this subject: I’ve been writing about the Muslim Brotherhood for a number of years. And for the last couple of weeks, I’ve been writing about the specific topic that we’re here to talk about this morning: the Brotherhood’s influence on our government, and the slings and arrows these five House members have been catching for having the temerity to notice it.

His speech talks about how our government policy seemed to have ” shifted in the direction of avowed enemies of the United States” so that it seemed to be common sense to check the backgrounds of some government officials more thoroughly.

He thought that the five House members making the request to conduct internal inquiries seeking knowledge of potential Islamist influences in governmental agencies, and then reporting back to Congress would be a good idea.

It seemed like common sense then, and it makes better sense today with more Islamist terrorist attacks that have been reported lately, and with more knowledgeable experts openly saying that we should have taken action sooner when we were first hit on 9/11.

In his speech, McCarthy said at the time,

I don’t understand why more people in Washington, from both parties, have not rallied to the support of Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressmen Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland and Rooney.

Top be sure, Mr. McCarthy does give credit to the many good Muslim’s who have actually helped the U.S. fight terrorism on many fronts.

Pro-American Muslims serve honorably in government, in our military, in our intelligence services, and in our major institutions.

It was then as it is today, that making mention of anyone having done anything wrong and being Muslim or Islam makes you a bigot. It is the social PC that intimidates and serves to hide the truth, and make a person stop talking. I suppose that is why McCarthy made a clear distinction between Muslims and Islamists:

When we talk about the influence of Islamists, we are referring to Muslims who are beholden to Islamic supremacism. Islamic supremacism is an ideology, not a religion.

The concern he raised was being burdened by conflicts of interest if a family member was active having ties with a known terror group.

It is not a question of your patriotism or your trustworthiness. It is about whether you would be burdened by such obvious conflicts of interest that you would be tempted to act on those interests, rather than in the best interests of the United States.

The five house members who wrote letters asking for more background inquiries were smeared instead of being advised that the findings of Ms. Abedin were of concern.

In his speech he told his audience that;

the response of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats, and their echo chamber in the Republican establishment has been to attack and smear the messengers.

Why in making a simple request to protect security of the U.S., and in a common sense respectful fashion, would there be raised such a fuss, and such rudeness taken out on the people making the request?

Shouldn’t there be several levels of security inquiries about someone that is to hold high public office and work in high governmental departments that effect policy of the United States and be able to access high security information? Why wouldn’t we be cautious of spy’s or of persons who could use sensitive information in secret to convey it to the interests of groups that are anti-American and are not our friends?

In the case of Huma Abedin, they found that she has quite a threatening background and connections in her family with a major Muslim Brotherhood member who helps finance al-Qaeda. Wouldn’t that cause concern in the White House especially?

Their letter to the State Department’s inspector general stated that Ms. Abedin “has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother — connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” It turns out, however, that HumaAbedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda.

There really needs to be some explaining and thorough reporting on the backgrounds of Ms. Abedin as well as members of Congress, their aides, other departments within the United States government to keep our country safe.

There is no excuse, and this seems to border on criminal offenses, if not poor public policy that would be so lax as to allow such persons with these kinds of backgrounds to operate in our government.

Anyone who disagrees should be seen as a traitor to allow open doors for enemies of the United States to access privileged information.

A video inspired me to write this blog post because it is refreshing to see that there are Muslim-informed organizations out there working to destigmatize Muslims as being part of the radical Muslim extremists we all hear about.

Maajid Nawaz is an author and Founding Chairman of Quilliam who explained his views on the differences of Islam. He explains,

“is the world’s first counter-extremism think tank set up to address the unique challenges of citizenship, identity, and belonging in a globalised world. Quilliam stands for religious freedom, equality, human rights and democracy”.

It makes the important statement that,

“Challenging extremism is the duty of all responsible members of society”.

It seems as though this foundation has taken it upon itself to be one of the peaceful Muslim organizations that stands against Muslim terrorism.

It seems that we in the West have long called for that, and many have complained publicly that American Muslims are not doing enough to stand against Islamist terrorism.

According to the organization’s video, “Countering Extremism Together“, the organization was named after one of Britain’s first converts to Islam.

The video is short, just over five minutes, that features Nawaz speaking out against Islamist extremism, or “Islamism”.

An anti-Islamophobia event hosts a panel of speakers, one of whom is a prominent college professor at Florida Atlantic University who discusses the “rationality” behind a seventh-century punishment of cutting off a person’s hands for stealing.

Recorded on video, the professor explains the vicious punishment of Sharia law that is supposed to prevent Muslims from stealing.

They begin to weigh and balance judgment from the place of killing people as an acceptable way of punishment. Their judgment seems to start at death, as if every crime is punishable by death, so thief’s ought to be happy that they only get their hands cut off. They get to keep their lives and so it is a better sentence because they get to live for a crime such as stealing.

So in trying to get this straight, the thinking is, that instead of killing people who rob and steal, it is better to cut their hands off. By cutting off their hands, the robbers and thief’s lives are compassionately spared. We are supposed to see this backwards logic as if it were more humane, more humane than actually killing them. As if cutting off body parts in judgment of a person who committed a crime could ever be humane.

Apparently such severe torture is supposed to deter Muslims from stealing, yet how has this form of punishment worked for them? Why is this still their law if it is supposed to create a fearful example to Muslims and make them never want to steal, or get caught stealing? It doesn’t work or they wouldn’t need this law. It would have solved the problem the first time.

It is more a barbaric statement about who they are at the core, to see this as a humane way of punishing someone. The problem is, there is nothing human, or humane, about Sharia law.

The law forces down people’s throats a very brutal, primitive lifestyle, one that has never progressed beyond a seventh century caveman mentality that view people as animals to be slaughtered, and the people are seen as never amounting to any value at all.

My perspective is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that they will exist but only by barbarism because they can’t think of a way to survive and risk being found out as being the flunkies of the world that they are among regular people on earth.

I see it as being that these people pushing Sharia law on us don’t know how to live among friendly people and they refuse to civilly cohabitate on the earth with the human race. If they can’t have what others have they must steal what they can and subjugate people, senselessly murder people, trampling their way across other people’s lands to try and take it from them, like rejects at birth. No one wants to play that way. As children who grew up to be cruel to animals, Sharia law adherants will try and take away things that aren’t theirs, bully and scream until they dominate people who will give up fighting them off. Making nice with people like this won’t work; they never learn how to be civil and aren’t interested in becoming so. They want to rob and kill and according to Christian belief, this is what Satan does: he comes to kill, steal and destroy.

“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” – John 10:10 (KJV)

Don’t you think you ought to protect yourself against these people and not make a way clear for these people to enter in our lands to take from us what it is that we hold dear?

Safety for one, is what most people hold dear. We trust that in the United States we will be held accountable for our actions and so that helps dispel the criminal elements in our cities and towns.

But Sharia law cuts the hands off of their people who rob and steal so they can walk around in public without their hands, supposedly as an example of what will happen if you have possibly be found guilty of stealing. That ought to be enough to keep those people in line; after all, without hands they can never do anything bad again. Next time, if they try stealing they may get their arms cut off, or be killed since they had a warning.

What mentality thinks this way?

My feeling is that these are small minded rejects who can only “win” at anything by displaying their barbaric pride, and seeing people die.